H*ll, slavery was constitutional. So what?
Libertarians believe in property rights and the non-initiation of aggression tenet.
Now it is impossible to live without making some noise. On the otherhand, property owners have some rights to limit noises crossing their property lines.
Clearly a property owner has full freedom to play his or her music as loud as she wants -- in a sound reducing bunker, for instance. But you get property infringments when the sound is so loud as to disturb the reasonable expectation of quietness of the property owner.
A property owner who buys land and builds a home at the end of a commerial jet runway does not have the same reasonable expectation of quietness as does a long held property/home owner where a new airport builds next to her.
Where aspects of activities cause consequences that cross property lines by their very nature (sound propogation) you have to apply reasonable-person tests to the alleged infringements. What would a reasonable-person conclude?
Libertarian ideals are concise (as they should be.) But detractors of concise ideals always assert that they should therefore be as if programable into a computer -- push a button and the proper answer pops out.
That will never be the case, but it is a poor reason to attack concise ideals, since the reasonable-person test allows concise ideals to be strived for.